Ross v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n
| Decision Date | 04 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. B225796.,B225796. |
| Citation | 199 Cal.App.4th 900,133 Cal.Rptr.3d 107 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Deane Earl ROSS, as Co–Trustee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Appellants; Malibu Bay Company, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Elkins Kalt Weintraud, John M. Bowman and Reuben Gartside for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, John A. Saurenman, Assistant Attorney General, Christina Bull Arndt and Wyatt E. Sloan–Tribe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendantand Appellant California Coastal Commission.
Christi Hogin, City Attorney, Jenkins & Hogin, Manhattan Beach, and John C. Cotti for Defendant and Appellant City of Malibu.
Alston & Bird, Nicki Carlsen, Rebecca S. Harrington, Los Angeles for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
A governmental entity with beachfront property within its borders must adopt a local coastal program. A local coastal program or any amendments thereto are subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission (the commission). Public Resources Code section 21080.5, subdivision (a), which is part of the California Environmental Quality Act, permits the Secretary of the Resources Agency (the secretary) to certify an administrative agency's regulatory program. The secretary's certification extends to the preparation of written documentation supporting an environmental decision. Public Resources Code section 21080.5, subdivisions (d)(2)(B), (d)(2)(D), (d)(2)(F) and (d)(3), and California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15252, subdivision (a) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines) specify certain procedural substantive requirements for a certified program's environmental documentation with reference to a local coastal program as well as other planning decisions. Once the secretary certifies a local coastal program, written documentation supporting the commission's approval may be used in lieu of an environmental impact report. The secretary has certified the commission's review process for approving a local coastal program amendment.
The only undeveloped beachfront property (the subject property) in the City of Malibu (the city) on Broad Beach is owned by Malibu Bay Company (the developer). In order to facilitate the subdivision of the subject property, the city, among other things, adopted an amendment to its local coastal program. The commission, relying on a written staff report and testimony, certified the amendment to the city's local coastal program; albeit only after increasing the view corridors from Pacific Coast Highway to the beach. No environmental impact report was prepared.
In response, plaintiffs, Deane Earl Ross and the Ross Family Trust, filed a mandate petition challenging the commission's certification, with the aforementioned view corridor modification, of the city's local coastal program amendment. The trial court granted plaintiffs' mandate petition, in part, finding noncompliance with the procedural and substantive requirements imposed for environmental impact reports by the California Environmental Quality Act. The commission, the city and the developer appeal from that portion of the judgment partially granting plaintiffs' mandate petition. As to that portion of the judgment denying their mandate petition, plaintiffs have appealed.
In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude the commission reasonably resolved conflicting city development standards concerning buffers in environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Further, largely applying Public Resources Code section 21080.5, subdivisions (d)(2)(B), (d)(2)(D), (d)(2)(F) and (d)(3), and Guidelines section 15252, we resolve questions about the adequacy of the commission's review, approval and modification of the amendment to the city's local coastal program. We conclude the commission complied with Public Resources Code section 21080.5, subdivisions (d)(2)(B), (d)(2)(D), (d)(2)(F) and (d)(3), and Guidelines section 15252, subdivision (a). Thus, the mandate petition should have been denied in its entirety.
The administrative record reveals that the developer owns a 2.08–acre beachfront parcel in the city, located at the eastern end of Broad Beach between the Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean. The subject property is approximately 200 feet wide at its northern boundary along the Pacific Coast Highway and narrows to approximately 186 feet at its southern border along the beach. The property is the last undeveloped parcel on Broad Beach in a developed residential area. There are beachfront residences on both sides of Broad Beach Road. The subject property is undeveloped except for a narrow access driveway, landscaping, and gated fencing at the northern end of the property. The subject property is zoned for single family-medium density (1 unit per 0.25 acre) in the city's local coastal program. The Local Implementation Plan, part of the city's local coastal program, required that all new lots in the single family-medium density zoning district have a minimum size of 0.25 acre and minimum lot width of 80 feet. (We will discuss later the roles of a Local Implementation Plan and local coastal program as part of the planning process under the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act).)
The subject property is part of a larger coastal dune ecosystem at Broad Beach. The coastal dune community fronting homes along Broad Beach is part of the southern foredunes, which are considered environmentally sensitive habitat areas in the city's local coastal program. (We will later clarify the concept of an environmentally sensitive habitat area.) Dunes range from lightly to heavily impacted with non-native plants between the beach and most of the homes. The subject property has been disturbed over time: beginning with the construction of the Pacific Coast Highway; its use as a boat storage and launching site; and then use as a construction staging ground.
On July 29, 2005, the developer applied for issuance of a coastal development permit, tentative parcel map, general plan amendment, and zoning text amendment. The developer sought to subdivide the 2.08 acre, 200–foot wide beachfront property into 4 separate lots. Each proposed lot was more than 0.50 acre with a lot width ranging from 48 to 50 feet. The 4 proposed lots did not meet the local coastal program's minimum lot width requirement of 80 feet for the single family-medium density zoning district. The developer also requested the Local Implementation Plan portion of the local coastal program be amended so as to create a new zoning district allowing for a lot width of 45 feet.
The city staff reviewed the developer's application and prepared a draft mitigated negative declaration to satisfy California Environmental Quality Act requirements. On June 8, 2006, the city published a notice of intent to adopt the draft mitigated negative declaration for the project. Plaintiffs, who own a parcel next to the subject property, and other residents objected to the project and the draft mitigated negative declaration. Plaintiffs argued that the proposed amendment to the local coastal program would constitute illegal “spot” zoning. They also argued that the project violated the local coastal program and land use plan regulations relating to the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
On September 5, 2006, the city planning commission conditionally approved a coastal development permit, proposed tentative parcel map and draft mitigated negative declaration. The planning commission recommended the city council approve the local coastal program, zoning text and map, and general plan map amendments. Plaintiffs appealed the city planning commission's decision to the city council arguing in part that the amendment constituted illegal “spot” zoning. In response, the city staff developed an alternative proposal to amend the Local Implementation Plan portion of the local coastal program to reduce the minimum lot width standard from 80 feet to 45 feet for all of the 733 beachfront parcels. The lots were all within the city's single family-medium density zoning district.
The city staff analyzed the single family-medium density zoned beachfront properties to determine if the new lot width standard would allow for an increase in development density. The city staff found of the 733 single family-medium density zoned beachfront parcels within its boundaries, the majority were non-conforming, with an average lot width of 50 feet. At Broad Beach, the average lot width was only 48 feet.
The city staff found only five parcels meeting both the lot size and width minimum requirement which could be subdivided under the new proposed lot width standard; one of which was the subject property. The other four parcels were already developed with single-family homes. Two of the four developed parcels were created by lot mergers or ties of three and four lots and could not be further subdivided under the local coastal program. The city staff determined only two developed parcels could potentially use the draft local coastal program amendment to create an additional lot each, if demolition of the existing homes and subdivision were requested. To subdivide, the owners of these two developed parcels would be required to apply for a coastal development permit and the city would need to conduct environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act on those lots. The city staff determined the draft local coastal program amendment would have negligible direct and cumulative impacts on aesthetics, biological resources and land use and planning.
As part of the draft mitigated...
To continue reading
Request your trial